11 ms·
Florida governor signs bill to ban Big Tech 'deplatforming'
- darksaints 5y agoI wonder if he'll also sign a ban on NFL deplatforming. Probably not.
- SteveNuts 5y agoGood luck to them when this finally hits the Supreme court.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoMaybe the goal is to force the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThe goal is to rile up certain voters and be able to point to the law as proof of his convictions, even though the law will be struck down and is a grand waste of taxpayer resources, all from the party of “small government”.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoThe Supreme Court is now supposedly 6-3 and many red states are passing new and restrictive anti-abortion laws hoping they trigger a re-evaluation of Roe V. Wade. I see this bill as having a similar impetus to get the court to make a decision on Big Tech and Free Speech.
- mattnewton 5y agoWhile I think this is just social signalling about the evil tech elite, It’s quite possible that the ultimate intention here is to make it to the Supreme Court and make new precedent. During ACB’s confirmation hearing Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse talked about how there are three major right wing NGOs that work together in both confirming federal judges (and Supreme Court justices), and in getting cases to them to be tried. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjcXVKg43qY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjcXVKg43qY
- softwaredoug 5y agoSo if I have an online magazine, I can't choose what kinds of authors I want to invite? How is that any different than reddit deciding what communities to have/not have...
- Grustaf 5y agoI think the idea is that the tech giants are NOT publishers. If they were, they would be responsible for third-party content. So they can't really use that argument if they want to continue being exempted from responsibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
- hackyhacky 5y agoSection 230 does not mean what you think. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- mikeyouse 5y agoLiterally read the link you just posted, the text of Section 230 makes absolutely no distinction between 'Publishers' and platforms. I really wish people would stop parroting this completely incorrect reading of the law. Or take it from Mike Masnick: > If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" > I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. > To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago> The legislation includes a clause that exempts a company "that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex". Amazing.
- SamBam 5y agoGuess we'll be seeing a tiny two-bit "Facebookville" opening up sometime soon...
- edoceo 5y agoWith blackjack and hookers!
- Alex3917 5y ago> Guess we'll be seeing a tiny two-bit "Facebookville" opening up sometime soon... More likely an in-person VR space.
- seanp2k2 5y agoCan’t wait to play VR FarmVille! Maybe Zynga will make a comeback.
- mcphage 5y agoThere was a small amusement park near where I live that was open for many years, and finally closed for good around 2 years ago. I'd be okay with Facebook re-opening that one.
- ethbr0 5y agoSomeone's angling for a presidential run in 2024, or seats in 2022. Vague bills that are sure to be challenged in court are pretty standard partisan fare. They're essentially win-win. If you pass it, and it's upheld, you get to trumpet your victory. If you pass it, and it gets struck down by the courts, you get to rally your base with how the courts are thwarting your agenda. Bonus points if it's on an ephemeral enough topic that it would be impossible for it to "fail" post-implementation.
- 5y ago
- Grustaf 5y ago>Imagine if the government required a church to allow user-created comments or third-party advertisements promoting abortion on its social media page. - Steve DelBianco, NetChoice's chief executive It sounds like he's arguing that the social networks are making editorial decisions, isn't that what they're desperately claiming not to do?
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoThey are definately trying to have their cake and eat it: either you are a media company and legally responsible for content, or you are a platform and then you leave people alone unless they are doong somethong illegal
- ttt0 5y agoWhere's the contradiction?
- cygx 5y ago> either you are a media company and legally responsible for content, or you are a platform and then you leave people alone unless they are doong somethong illegal Says who?
- Grustaf 5y agoI think many people agree that the reason phone companies are not held responsible for what people say on the phone is that they have no control over it, they don't make any editorial decisions. Newspapers on the other hand ARE responsible, because they decide what to print. I can't really see how one could argue that Facebook or Twitter should be able to avoid being classified as a newspaper if provide something that is very similar to a gossip magazine, where they can choose freely what to print and not. They can and do ban gossip and unfavourable information about politicians they favour, for example, and they could suppress bad press about people that pay them. I don't think they should be able to do that, without any accountability. Do you? If so, why?
- 5y ago
- valine 5y agoHow can this possibly hold up in court? Doesn't "big tech" have a right to free speech?
- BitwiseFool 5y agoI guess the question will come down to whose free speech rights are more important, the end-users' or the corporate entity's?
- valine 5y agoThe 1st amendment in the US constitution prevents the government from stifling speech. Being banned on privately owned and operated social media is not a violation of your right to free speech.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoThe US Constitution only prohibits the government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. It says nothing about preventing a privately owned and operated company from doing so.
- ppseafield 5y agoYes. The constitution doesn't include Section 230 either. Other laws besides the constitution also regulate the activities of privately owned companies. This doesn't have anything to do with the government not being able to abridge the free speech of its citizens.
- spazrunaway 5y agoWow, I've never heard this take before. I'm in awe at the immensity of your brain. It actually is a terrible violation of my right to free speech. For those of us with a deeper understanding of rights than the XKCD "le show you the door" comic, we're concerned with people being denied service (in an entirely arbitrary, incoherent and inconsistent manner often based on race and political opinion) from what are effectively essential services and utilities that they may rely on for their livelihoods. I don't want my power, or phone service, or bank accounts disconnected because somebody at the SPLC called me a racist; huh, gee, those aren't mentioned in the 1st amendment either, even through they're often operated by private companies. And this sort of tactical constitutionalism really wears thin when the very same people turn around and demand that the NFL respect Colin Kapernick's "free speech rights", or wax poetic about how wonderful it is that opposition forces in Syria can use American technologies like Twitter and Signal to coordinate and speak freely - then claim it's also wonderful for these platforms to censor so-called racists here in the US, or to cooperate with the FBI to jail political dissidents who do such terrible things as loitering in public buildings.
- koheripbal 5y agoI wonder how people who support deplatforming would react if their ISP cut their internet service?
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoWhich is why ISPs should be common carriers.
- bdcravens 5y agoThey can, for various violations of the terms of service.
- unethical_ban 5y agoI thought about this several years ago. TLDR: Every scenario has a spectrum; there is always a line to be drawn. When it comes to cutting off access to someone from Internet services, I believe that line is ISPs. https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/ https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/
- justbored123 5y agoThat is a terrible example. Is not the same not having internet, water, or power, than not having Twitter or Facebook dude. And besides that, If I have 20 options like I do with social networks and it's as easy to change as to create a new account, I'll simply change providers or I can easily create another account in 3 seconds. This kind of argument comparing apples and oranges is terrible.
- chmod600 5y ago"Is not the same not having internet, water, or power, than not having Twitter or Facebook dude." 20 years ago, we could have seen the same argument that internet is not like water or power.
- oceanplexian 5y agoIf the government forces people in their homes, say, because of a pandemic, and the only legal way to engage in the public square is Facebook or Twitter, then I'd argue it is a lot like a utility like water or power.
- willis936 5y agoIn other news: entirety of FL government forgets about the 1st ammendment.
- golemotron 5y agoSection 230 muddied the water. The asymmetry has been a disaster for society. When social media companies assume legal liability for content on their platforms we can talk about the protections of the First Amendment and the limits that grew under law over the past 230 years; they were casually discarded over the past 20.
- Causality1 5y agoThis has nothing to do with censorship. He knows it won't survive a courtroom. This is just DeSantis doing the equivalent of virtue-signaling to his base.
- commandlinefan 5y agoI don't know - the only real counterargument I've seen is that Facebook and Twitter are private entities, so they should be able to operate however they like. I could use very similar reasoning to reason that the government has no mandate to break up monopolistic businesses, either.
- trutannus 5y agoI've always found it funny how the most vocal detractors of deplatforming are generally right-learning politicians and pundits, some of whom have publicly stated how much they like Ayn Rand. The irony here is that Rand pretty explicitly supports the right to deplatform people in The Virtue of Selfishness. Up until recently it was a common attitude in conservative political circles that forcing someone to publish content they disagreed with was itself the violation of a right. See below: "The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas. Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others." I struggle to find a single source that the American right likes to cite which would go in the opposite direction, given that more right-leaning conceptualizations of rights tends to be a freedom from as opposed to a freedom to right. Given this framework, social media companies have a freedom from providing a platform for ideas they find objectionable.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoUltimately, I think right-leaning politicians want to ban deplatforming because deplatforming works and they have the most to lose from it. I see this as practical political calculus and a fight for survival rather than some ideological exercise.
- trutannus 5y agoAbsolutely, that's what it actually is. That said, they do tend to sell it as an ideological exercise in "free speech suppression". Pointing this out is important anyway to make sure that people realize they're being bamboozled by some political strategy and not a genuine attack on their rights.
- ttt0 5y agoSo does deplatforming work or is it just a myth, like some people say?
- endisneigh 5y agoOut of curiosity - is it possible for UPS/FedEx/USPS to stop one from sending mail through their services? I consider UPS/FedEx to be sort of the physical analog to Facebook and Twitter.
- miniman1337 5y agoSure for FedEx / UPS if you break the ToS. USPS might be a different story.
- endisneigh 5y agoReally? Do you have any info on this? I know all three ban certain types of things from being sent in certain circumstances, but I've never heard of an individual being barred services.
- chmod600 5y agoThis may not be effective and may not stand up to a court challenge. But it's the first in a salvo. Watch to see the kinds of arguments big tech is forced to make when they fight this law. Those arguments will be used against them later. FB, et al., enjoy immunity (criminal and civil) from the illegal stuff their users post, and that is their weakness. There is nothing in the Constitution ensuring that they keep that immunity (or at least the First Amendment hasn't been interpreted to say that yet). It's actually similar to how the PLCAA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerc...) protects gun manufacturers from being sued into oblivion. Rights don't mean much when exercising them means you will get buried in frivilous suits.
- Workaccount2 5y agoClaiming they "enjoy immunity" against illegal stuff posted on their websites is like claiming that you "enjoy immunity" against illegal stuff that shows up in your physical mailbox. It's not enjoying, its sensical.
- chmod600 5y agoThat's the same as the argument for the PLCAA, which has been under direct attack for a while and may get changed. Laws can change, and section 230 is not the only possible "sensical" one. The First Amendment is a big rock to hide behind. But there are other avenues of attack that are clearly possible. Those attacks will happen when people feel that the spirit of free speech is truly being threatened, where politicians can't effectively reach even people who want to hear from them. Edited for clarity.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- qzw 5y agoThis law is largely a way for FL governor DeSantis to further solidify his conservative bonafides ahead of a likely 2024 run for president (assuming a certain former president doesn't enter the field). Whether it stands up in court eventually doesn't make the slightest difference.
- twiddling 5y agoActually it failing in the courts provides more fire for the campaign "Activist Judges!" as a rallying cry.
- mythrwy 5y agoI believe that's pretty much the essence of DeSantis' approach. It would be nice to see rational equitable solutions as to who can speak and where though. It wouldn't be such a big deal if were back in the age of 100,000 tiny blogs. But in this age of a handful of big platforms determining which content and viewpoints are acceptable, there might be some moral hazard and negative potential for society. This is true no matter what your particular politics or religion might be and even if they are "on your side" today.
- gnoll_of_gozag 5y agobrb creating 100 alts to spam every comment section on twitter with images of frogs and crows. they cant ban all of me for 14 days
- bradford 5y agoI don't see it pointed out in this article, but the de-platforming ban appears to be limited to state political candidates: "The new law will ... impose fines of $250,000 per day on any social media company that de-platforms candidates running for statewide office. It would also impose a $25,000 a day fine on companies that de-platform candidates running for local offices. ... DeSantis said any Floridian can block a candidate they don’t want to see online and it’s not up to Big Tech companies to make those decisions for the public." Seems odd to take such a moral stand on this issue, but only offer protection to political candidates/politicians. (from https://nbc-2.com/news/state/2021/05/24/desantis-signs-bill-that-aims-to-stop-social-media-censorship-on-politicians/ https://nbc-2.com/news/state/2021/05/24/desantis-signs-bill-...)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- koheripbal 5y agoI don't think it's about morality. I think it's about preventing very large corporations from influencing elections. If there was a healthier and broader marketplace of forums that people spoke on, I would agree that those private companies could do whatever they want. ...but since probably 99% of all political discourse is concentrated on a single digit number of social media platforms, then I think they there's a systemic risk of election influence we need to protect ourselves from.
- bradford 5y ago> If there was a healthier and broader marketplace of forums that people spoke on, > 99% of all political discourse is concentrated on a single digit number of social media platforms, let's not blur discourse from the banned candidate/politician with discourse by the population at large. Any candidate could be banned from Twitter, but that doesn't stop discussion about said candidate on any platform. The candidate can still respond on other platforms and subsequent discussion can still ensue. I can only guess Florida's motivation on this is but I have a hard time believing that protection from election influence is the primary factor.
- justbored123 5y agoI'm having a really hard time trying to understand the level of entitlement that takes to believe that you can have a service from a private for-profit business without paying for it, like Facebook, YouTube, etc. and they are forced to give it to you without any say on it, no matter what, even if it's not advertiser friendly and ruins their business.
- chmod600 5y agoIt's the monopoly angle. You can agree or disagree, but it doesn't make sense to form an argument without addressing that.
- hirundo 5y agoIt's the same concept as requiring companies not to discriminate in providing accommodations to members of protected classes, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964. It's just a different class. The debate is about which classes it should be legal to discriminate against.
- dwaltrip 5y agoIf someone is acting like a moron or saying harmful things, I should be able to kick them out of my business. Saying whatever you want is not and should not be a protected class.
- unanswered 5y ago"Acting like a moron" is entirely subjective. You will inevitably find a way to apply it to anyone you disagree with. This justification would work just as well for other protected classes; it just so happens they've been set up to include your in-groups and not your out-groups.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 5y ago
- Workaccount2 5y agoI just can't take these people seriously. They rallied hard against net neutrality because "the government can't tell private companies [ISPs] what to do" Now they want the government to moderate speech on private platforms. That's hypocrisy that even a 2nd grader could point out.
- president 5y agoPlease don't use divisive terms like "they" as it turns things into an "us vs them" scenario rather than focusing on the issue itself.
- antisyzygy 5y agoRepublican leaders have shown their hypocrisy for decades at this point. Say one thing, do another, perpetually. This is more evidence of the same. It's most certainly a "they" thing.
- president 5y agoYou are turning the conversation into a political one when it doesn't need to be. The idea of banning "deplatforming" does not need to be married to a political party. We can have interesting conversations on this site without pointing the finger at a political party. This is exactly the type of messaging that promotes anger and hatred in our society. Not sure why HN doesn't have rules against this type of political agitation yet has rules against "nationalistic flamewar". Maybe dang can comment on this.
- jfengel 5y agoThe issue we're talking about here is not an abstraction, but a specific law with real-world ramifications. We've talked the abstraction to death; there is nothing new to contribute. This is an opportunity to apply it to an actual real-world instance. That's inherently political because it was created politically. There is no way to ignore that it was crafted by one political party to the detriment of another. We can avoid naming them if you think that would help from getting people's hackles up, but it's also part of a pattern of behavior that goes far past this one instance. Discussing this as an abstraction is a luxury for those who don't have to live with the consequences. Blaming those who object for promoting "anger and hatred", while giving a pass to those who pass the law designed to disenfranchise them, is inherently partisan.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sjs382 5y agoClearly violates the commerce clause. No chance of this sticking, even with the current courts.
- RickJWagner 5y agoAlso in the news today: Conservative congressman Tom Cotton is showing a headline (I think from CNN) that bashes him for repeating the 'debunked' idea that corona may have come from the Wahun lab. Of course that theory is very much alive and viable today. Republican Rand Paul is upset that some songwriter made a Twitter post offering to buy drinks for someone who 'finishes the job his neighbor started', a reference to the neighbor who physically attacked Paul a few years back. Paul correctly points out that Twitter is supposed to have a policy against threats and violence. So yes, there seems to be something there.
- Black101 5y agobetter then doing nothing... they should classify them as pipes and unable to hide content from their platforms (HN could benefit from that too, a lot, if not more)